A new study published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics examined cervical cancer rates among women in Sweden and discovered a link between increased cervical cancer rates among women aged 20-49 during a two-year period between 2014 and 2015, corresponding to increased HPV vaccination rates in this population group, years earlier, when mass HPV vaccinations started in Sweden.

Women above the age of 50, during this two-year period, saw no significant cervical cancer increase and were likely too old to have been vaccinated with the HPV vaccine.

Fig. 1: Increase in incidence of cervical cancer among younger women (less than 50 years) as compared with women over 50 years. The data shows the number of cases/100,000 women from 2006 to 2015. Source.

Since the study casts doubt on the efficacy of the HPV vaccine, and, in fact, links the vaccine to increased cancer rates, it is highly unlikely you will read about this in the U.S. corporate-sponsored media, where nothing negative about the blockbuster HPV Gardasil vaccine is allowed.

The study was conducted by Lars Andersson, PhD, from the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology at the Karolinska Institute in Solna, Sweden.

Dr. Andersson states that:

…when the Swedish media discussed the increase in the incidence of cervical cancer, the health authorities were unable to explain the increase.

So Dr. Andersson discussed the possibility that mass HPV vaccination rates actually could be the cause of increased rates of cervical cancer:

HPV vaccination could play a role in the increase in the incidence of cervical cancer. About 25% of cervical cancers have a rapid onset of about three years including progression from normal cells to cancer.

Therefore, an increase may be seen within a short period of time.

Gardasil was approved in Sweden in 2006. In 2010, the vaccination of a substantial number of girls started. In 2010, about 80% of the 12-year-old girls were vaccinated.

Combined with 59% of the 13–18-year-old girls vaccinated through the catch-up programme in the same period, one can say that most girls were vaccinated.

Thus, the oldest girls in the programme were 23 years old in 2015; and this is well within the younger age group shown in Fig. 1.

Dr. Andersson points out that even the FDA’s own analysis of Gardasil in 2006 showed a higher risk of “premalignant cell changes” from the vaccine in certain groups that had already been exposed to some HPV strains:

The efficacy of HPV-vaccines has been evaluated by studying premalignant cell changes in the cervix called CIN2/3 and cervical adenocarcinoma in situ or worse. The efficacy was calculated for individuals who have not been exposed to HPV 16 and 18. These individuals are called naïve.

The vaccine is efficacious only in individuals not previously exposed to HPV 16 and 18 (naïve individuals). If an individual has already been exposed to HPV 16 and 18, no new antibodies are made.

Therefore, the vaccine will not work for non-naïve individuals. HPV 16 and 18 are responsible for about 70% of all cervical cancers.

It is therefore crucial to give the vaccine to naïve individuals.

During their review of Gardasil by the FDA, the efficacy of the vaccine was also evaluated on individuals who were exposed to the oncogenic HPV strains before vaccination since individuals who are non-naïve will also receive the vaccination.

A concern was raised for disease enhancement (increase in CIN 2/3, cervical adenocarcinoma in situ or worse) in this subgroup.

In these individuals, the efficacy was -25.8% (95% CI: -76.4, 10.1%).

Thus, vaccination with Gardasil of non-naïve individuals who had HPV 16/18 oncogenes before vaccination showed a higher level of premalignant cell changes than did placebo.

The FDA statisticians could not draw any firm conclusions. In their analysis, the FDA included only cases with HPV 16/18. If cases with oncogenes other than HPV 16/18 had been included in the analysis, the efficacy of data could have been even more unfavourable.

U.S. Public Health Scandal? Is Gardasil Causing an Increased Risk of Cervical Cancer in Some Women?

Health Impact News has covered dozens of stories of Gardasil vaccine injuries. In many of these stories, mothers have reported that their doctor convinced them to have their daughters vaccinated to prevent cancer.

How many of these doctors have actually studied the limitations of this vaccine and tested their patients for strains of HPV prior to vaccination to determine risk of developing cancer that can result from receiving the vaccines based on exposure to certain HPV strains?

This is certainly a public health scandal, and Health Impact Newsreported back in 2013 that Scientists at the Duke University School of Medicine discovered that African American women carry HPV strains not found in the Gardasil vaccine, and they should not even be receiving the vaccine at all, since it only carries a risk of harm with no benefit.

With so many cases of premature ovarian failure (premature menopause) being reported with the Gardasil vaccine, where young women will never be able to bear children, some have asked if this was intentional as a way of enforcing population control. (More info here.)

In the meantime, censorship of anything negative regarding the Gardasil HPV vaccine remains in tact with the corporate-sponsored “mainstream” media. (Although one family is suing Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil.)

Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people.

In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine.

One of the sane voices when it comes to examining the science behind modern-day vaccines, no pro-vaccine extremist doctors have ever dared to debate her in public.

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?

One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”

However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.

The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.

Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.

In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.

Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.

These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.

In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.